If, like me, you love magazines then you probably already know about magculture, the magazine-themed blog run by Jeremy Leslie, and if not then it's there waiting for you. I wish Jeremy would open a magazine shop in London – a magazine store with titles selected by him would be AMAZING. Anyway, he's a designer who has worked in the industry for many years, his posts are always good and he's great at flagging up the more obscure titles that you might otherwise not come across.
He is involved in a magazine conference that happens every other year called Colophon. I actually went along to the last one, and was in magazine heaven.
Anyway, on the subject of print and technology I saw this on his site the other day: have a look at what Wired and Adobe are up to with the ipad.
I don't know, though. It's all awfully corporate. I can see that advertisers would be thrilled with the idea that people could rotate a picture of a car 360. I like the idea that a magazine can be beautifully designed – and they really do lovely work at Wired – yet linked in to the web so that all sorts of extra content can be incorporated. I could see this working really well for a magazine like IdN, say, who generally include a DVD of extra material such as film and animation. Or obvious potential for film and music magazines to stream stuff. But why would you want a digital magazine when you could just read the same content on a website?
Just behind me on the kitchen shelf are two magazines I've been dipping in and out of over breakfast for a while, 'SUP and Lodown. They have quite a bit in common – both small independent music magazines, although according to its contents headers Lowdown also covers Film, Fashion, Entertainment and Acrobatics.
But what enchants me is how different they are. Different sizes, different weights, different paper stock, totally different styles of photography, typography, editorial tone, pace, the way the content is laid out. In short, each has a unique and self-contained identity that is vivid, and real, and – because so much of this comes from the physical attributes – I think would be much harder to achieve on the web.
Both are endearingly designed in that self-conscious way that probably takes ages, the very important art of making it look like they haven't tried too hard (although maybe I'm being unfair and they really haven't). Don't get me wrong – I really like the way they're done. Some spreads from 'SUP:
and Lodown:
There's a poem at the beginning of Lodown that maybe seems a little cheesy, but I thought it was sweet, and from the heart – here's the bit I liked
'Once again it's the dawning of a new decennium / No big picture anymore. / Just moments adding up to something I'm not sure I understand. / Life itself is boring. Too predictable. Standardized. / And almost over at any time. / But then again there is music. And art. And my friends. And coffee. And the ocean. And all the things I love about you…'
And I suppose my point is that what I love about these two different magazines is that somewhere some people have poured love, time and energy into creating them so that I can enjoy them over toast and coffee on dark February mornings. And right now I'm not sure any collection of pixels on the screen, no matter how brilliantly done, could make me feel the same way. But … I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested in the possibilities.
p.s.
Thanks lovely mono-blog for making my day.